Senator Fido Wants To Create Official Ambassador For Hollywood's Interests

from the what-is-he-smoking dept

Senator Orrin Hatch has taken a back seat on various "intellectual property" issues in the past few years, as some other Senators have stepped up. But, for years, he was Hollywood's "go to" Senator for bad legislation. One of the running gags throughout Rob Reid's awesome novel Year Zero is how Senator Orrin Hatch is called "Senator Fido" because he's "the entertainment industry's pet Senator." Among his list of bad ideas was a plan to destroy the computers of people accused of downloading, a bill called the PIRATE Act, which would have given the FBI authority over civil copyright infringement claims so they could go after your kids for downloading, and the infamous INDUCE Act, which would have made a ton of stuff illegal, including potentially iPods, FTP, 3D printers and much much more. When asked to defend such craziness, Hatch claimed that it might not work but it still needed to be done. Thankfully, it did not pass.

“Intellectual property and innovation are the cornerstones of American competitiveness and job creation. Yet in recent years, they are all too often relegated to second tier status in our trade policy,” said Hatch. “With our economic competitors getting more sophisticated by the day, finding more ways to steal, expropriate or otherwise undermine the value of U.S. innovation, negotiating strong intellectual property agreements and enforcing them is a necessity, not an option. The establishment of a Chief Innovation and Intellectual Property Negotiator will give intellectual property and innovation the stature they deserve. The Office will help guarantee that America remains at the forefront of innovation policy, that our trade agreements reflect the critical importance of intellectual property to our economy and that the preservation of high-standard IP protection and enforcement are at the forefront of every trade debate.”

Of course, all this really shows is how incredibly out of touch or corrupt Senator Hatch is. First, as we've seen from ACTA to TPP to TAFTA and a variety of other trade agreements in between, "IP" issues have been front and center for the USTR negotiating team. To claim that they have been relegated to "second tier status" is laughable -- especially if you're familiar with the history of such agreements. For years, IP wasn't even considered a major issue for trade negotiations, until a few decades ago when the entertainment industry realized this was a good way to force Congress (and legislatures around the world) to adopt laws they wanted. And then it quickly became a key piece of every trade agreement.

It further shows just how incredibly out of touch Hatch is, because just as he's proposing this bill, tons of public interest and civil service groups and organizations have explicitly called for the end to the practice of lumping patents, trademarks and copyrights into free trade agreements, since they really have no place there.

Finally, the idea that stronger IP laws will "guarantee that America remains at the forefront of innovation policy," isn't just wrong, it's downright dangerous. Other countries have properly recognized that there is no link between IP and actual innovation, and that IP laws are really just a tool for protectionism against American companies.

Hatch fashions himself a "professional musician," and so every so often he feels the need to throw off a favor or two to the RIAA -- but this is ridiculous. Patents, trademarks and copyrights shouldn't be international trade issues at all, and they already have way too much prominence in such discussions. Claiming they need to be elevated is the exact incorrect stance to take.

I may not be for Hatch's scheme, but let's protect movies and music.

They're easy to steal. Seems reasonable to get other countries to accept the general principle that another country's movies and music should have some protection under copyright. How can that possibly harm them or the US public? No one has ever starved for lack of the latest movie. -- In fact, you're better off without them.

Those who created the works should be the sole recipients of income from them, BUT Mike is here most likely setting up and preserving "safe harbors" overseas such as Rapidshare so as to undermine US copyright holders. That's his consistent pattern. File hosts = good, movie studios = bad.

Now, as for me not mentioning patents, it's Mike who headlines this latest rant as "Ambassador For Hollywood's Interests"; I'm not interested in finding how much of that is from Hatch, so just ignore it. I'm FOR protecting American industry, but I'd do it more with tariffs against slave labor countries such as China. Industrial jobs are good jobs, and if Mike had ever made anything, he'd know they can be fun and rewarding. (Though no one should be trapped in hard labor! We need to distribute the profits better.) But Mike is from the Ivy League which despises dirty old factories.

Re:

Re: I may not be for Hatch's scheme, but let's protect movies and music.

When...when did Mike ever take a stance on environmentally damaging factories? I've been reading Techdirt for years and have never seen him say that.

Will you shut the fuck up, or at least provide some god-damn quotes, with links? I can write "But blue said, since he's a Commu-Nazi, that Adolf Hitler was the greatest man who ever lived!", but without a source, its meaningless. If you want to attack Mike, quote him and quote him in his entirety. Do not just parse what sounds good to you.

Re:

Re: I may not be for Hatch's scheme, but let's protect movies and music.

Movies are just as easy to steal as t-shirts, and yet I don't see...Oh, you meant copy. You know what else is easy to copy, er, I mean "steal"? Jokes, fashion designs, and recipes, none of which have any copyright protection and yet are constantly evolving, changing, innovating, etc. Why should movies be any different?

Why should a creator be the sole recipient of income? Does that mean the theater should not get any income? How much is Lucas's cut of Space Balls (which would not have been possible without Star Wars)? If you state categorically that it is the creator that should be the sole recipient of income then surely you must feel that copyright should last forever because someone else might profit off the creators works, and yet when the creator dies his descendants should also not get the copyright otherwise someone other than the creator is profiting. By your logic, there is no public domain.

"Senator Fido": REAL Politic and Professional, Mike

This shows clearly that you have NO influence in DC, besides are arrogant and lack common sense, otherwise you wouldn't take such a cheap and entirely unrelated shot at a sitting Senator merely because you read a book once. Little insults like that can stick in memory with not just Hatch, but with any of the myriads of Congress, staff, lobbyists, officials, gatekeepers, or other courtiers in DC: for example, an aide to an official whom you wish to sway with your boyish charm might recall this and worry that if the official sees you, it'll anger Hatch on some more important item. You never know whether it will or has, but an Ivy League professional should at least KNOW to not risk an egregious use of childish names on people in power.

@ numerous fanboy-trolls: What are you, 13? Say something on topic, not just ad hom.

Re: "Senator Fido": REAL Politic and Professional, Mike

Re: Re: Re: I may not be for Hatch's scheme, but let's protect movies and music.

@ "Chosen Reject" - "I see no reason why you shouldn't quote out_of_the_blue as saying that Hitler was a good guy."

You're LYING. I wrote: "Hitler did a lot of good things at first... Then went mono-maniacal."

I don't say Hitler was good, I say (not directly) that he incidentally did some good things (in order to become popular). Every dictator does. Just because the overall view isn't clear when you come at it with your ad hom bias doesn't mean you can lie like a rug. Read the whole thing.

how about getting rid of this moron and giving Hollywood the job of running the internet, the country and the world? basically that's what he is saying anyway. does anyone actually know where he came from? must be the planet Zog or somewhere similar where brains are not required. when will voters realise that half the crap that is introduced comes from people who are too old to understand modern technology and dont have a lot of years left to have to put up with the crap they start! what right has anyone of his age got to tell people in a progressive society what they can and cant do? he didn't put up with it when he was young, so why would anyone be any different now?

Re: "Senator Fido": REAL Politic and Professional, Mike

Heres your problem 'out of the blue'

This shows clearly that you have NO influence in DC

You think bribes and 'gatekeepers' are the way things should work. That was true before, but it is a new day. I think your myriads.
I don't sway aides or 'officials.' it is unethical. We tell them way its going to be, and if they don't like, they're toast.

Hatch (and others) might want to worry what sticks in our head about them. WTF is a senator going to do to me if he doens't like my ideas? are you suggesting they might resort to violence or somethign?

Re: Re: "Senator Fido": REAL Politic and Professional, Mike

@jupiterkansas (profile), Mar 26th, 2013 @ 12:07pm

Re: "Senator Fido": REAL Politic and Professional, Mike
If Mike offends you so much, why do you read every single thing he writes?
-----------------

1) It's where the wrongness is. 2) I'm amusing myself. 3) Mike invites my comment. -- Heck, he'd rather have one of me than a hundred of you witless saps echoing everything. I provide you fanboy-trolls with an enemy for childish ad hom.

Listen, fanboy. Just comment on topic if you can. You don't need to hound me. Try showing that you have cogent and civil points to make in return. You point up my posts, but I'm not here for anything but putting out my views. Too often I have to respond to lying fanboys, but that's fine, it's Techdirt, can't expect more.

Time for you fanboys to defend to the death my right to free speech, not just pretend you're for free speech, but in fact only if it pleases you. -- And don't say I can't expect lack of opposition, then. Because you're NOT actually opposing me, just barking round my ankles.

Anyway, actually, this topic is so dull and incontrovertible that you fanboys just went for ad hom more than usual.

Sheesh. Nowhere do I say or in the least imply that I wish it to be so. It IS a fact, though. -- I'd outlaw paid lobbyists, period. And fire half of DC at random. But if Mike is going to pretend he's a player, he just exposed the opposite.

Re: Re: I may not be for Hatch's scheme, but let's protect movies and music.

@ "You do know that those that get the biggest chunk of the money - as it stands - aren't the "creators" but the middle-man, right?"

I've said time and again that I'm NOT for corporate fat cats and wish for far more of the profits to go to the actual artists (I'd limit corporate to actual, provable costs plus maybe FIVE percent). You MUST have noticed that had you read more than a sentence or two of mine. As you haven't, you're merely badgering me. OR at least here, say, "OKAY. TURNS OUT WE AGREE. I'll look at your posts a bit more closely from now on." -- Of course, being an AC, I won't know whether that's true, so how 'bout you pick a screen name instead of totally sneaking around?

My opinion here is that anyone who won't at least pick a screen name intends total dishonesty to vary his opinions however necessary to win an argument, or at least to badger commenters until they give up in exasperation. And to be perfectly clear, that means YOU.

Re:

Interesting allegation. Do you have any actual evidence of corruption or is this just another bullshit slur? What does Hatch do that Wyden, Issa, Polis and Lofgren don't do?

Of course he doesn't have any actual evidence of corruption. This is Techdirt, where facts and evidence are inconveniences. Mike just keeps proving to the world that he's an extremist FUD-packer. Nobody hates truth more than Mike.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I may not be for Hatch's scheme, but let's protect movies and music.

So sad it is, whenever someone raises important, salient questions to your posts, you run screaming in the opposite direction, but should anyone suggest that you argued that Hitler did anything positive, OMG UP IN ARMS!!!!

Who am I kidding. I totally expected this behavior from you. It was just too easy to get you whipped up like this.

Again, you misquote and don't provide a link to prove what you are saying. I never said you supported him, I said you thought he was a good guy, and provided a link to where you said that. I've provided the link to the conversation referred to since you are unable or unwilling to do so (perhaps because it paints things in a different light than you would like it painted?).

As to the conversation at hand, which you so deftly tried to avoid. You accused the AC of being "totally dishonest" and "badgering commenters" simply because he didn't choose a screen name. That's an ad hom. Why do you try to cut off ad hom attacks from others (in this very thread started by you), and yet feel no remorse in using it yourself? That is hypocrisy, and I'm calling you out on it.

I may be a liar or I may have just quoted you in a way you didn't like. I've provided the link so others can judge for themselves. But whether I'm a liar or not, you are a hypocrite. Now, if you had any decency, you'd retract your ad homs and apologize. What you'll probably do is run away, change the topic back to when I quoted you, or use some more ad homs. Prove me wrong, blue. Be the wonderful person you claim to be.

@"Chosen Reject" - "I may be a liar or I may have just quoted you in a way you didn't like."

There's no MAY to it! You're a LIAR. I mentioned Hitler as example in a complex argument, and now you're claiming I say he was a good guy.

LOOK, LIAR. Just give the exact quote where I say he's a "good guy".

I'm confident that anyone reading it in context will understand, except for you Techdirt fanboys who have nothing but ad hom.

HERE'S THE WHOLE. I'm not afraid to be READ:
Hitler did a lot of good things at first... Then went mono-maniacal.

Man, it's just about impossible to convince you kids who've grown up in the happy times AFTER monopolies were busted up (and that legacy continues even today). You look at TAMED CAPITALISM and think it'd be even better if corporations were let run wild!

Well, IF you'd been born a hundred years ago and were actually subject to "pure" capitalism, you'd think it worse than communism: 70 hour work weeks, no health care, bosses using you up like animals. Full-blown capitalism is economic tyranny, the surrounding culture making it variously worse and better than other "systems", but just another form of plutocracy, and as cruel as they can get away with. -- You need to separate productive creators like Henry Ford and even Rockefeller from those who are simply born Rich and never trade values with the rest.

Listen, it's simple as The People must prevent ANY and all institutions from getting too big or they go insane and try to take over everything. That's just sheer fact, easily observable through all of history.

Now, just suppose that Google did gain a monopoly on search. At what point will you call for it to be regulated, Mike? Never, I suspect, because you were born to be a technocrat of the ruling class, have no experience outside the 1% privileged view, went to Ivy League college with the current generation of Washington lobbbyists (Cornell is apparently tops at that), and in every way, feel yourself above the herd and that you're born to rule. So you just simply cannot see that BIG IS BAD.

Capitalism NEEDS a ferment of competition to keep it working right, otherwise it'd stagnate. We must keep ANY corporation from ever gaining actual monopoly, because corporations aren't actually interested in progress, only in profits. -- So regulate the hell out of Google, and not just a pretend regulation without teeth, but get in there and find out what they're doing with all the tracking that they do.

@ "Chosen Reject" -- "I see you went with changing the topic rather than addressing the points in this thread about your use of ad homs when you say you don't want ad homs."

NO, TOPIC IS STILL THAT YOU'RE A LIAR. I'm not changing to what you wish to discuss.

SHOW where I said Hitler is a "good guy".

You've got my attention. Just because I usually see no point to this sort of back-and-forth off-topic sniping doesn't mean I run away from it. -- Does Mike respond to my many jibes? Heck, no. I give him credit for that much smarts, but I've no rep to lose, and now and then I LIKE this.

YOU ARE A LIAR, "Chosen Reject". You're the one running away from the original topic.

Moving this tiff with LIAR "Chosen Reject" back to the root:

Re: Re: I may not be for Hatch's scheme, but let's protect movies and music. I see no reason why you shouldn't quote out_of_the_blue as saying that Hitler was a good guy.

--------------------

out_of_the_blue, Mar 26th, 2013 @ 12:11pm

Re: Re: Re: I may not be for Hatch's scheme, but let's protect movies and music. @ "Chosen Reject" - "I see no reason why you shouldn't quote out_of_the_blue as saying that Hitler was a good guy."

You're LYING. I wrote: "Hitler did a lot of good things at first... Then went mono-maniacal."

I don't say Hitler was good, I say (not directly) that he incidentally did some good things (in order to become popular). Every dictator does. Just because the overall view isn't clear when you come at it with your ad hom bias doesn't mean you can lie like a rug. Read the whole thing.

Now, IF you had any decency, you'd retract.

----------------

My SOLE mention of "Hitler" is on heading with clear pejorative attached. You don't have the least excuse to say that I wrote "that Hitler was a good guy." NOT THE LEAST EXCUSE. You just didn't expect me to visit this topic again and thought that you could get away with LYING.

NOR, if you wish to bring up ad hom, did you in the least address the topic. Your post is sheer VILE ad hom aimed squarely at me. -- And when I chose to defend against that lie, you accuse ME of ad hom. DOUBLE LIAR.

@ LIAR Chosen Reject: yes, I CAN continue, I'm in the right.
"I'm sure you can continue to avoid discussing how you are both a hypocrite and a liar. Keep it coming blue, you're not foaming at the mouth yet."

It's you who'll eventually give up because know you're in the wrong.

Now, again, LIAR: Just give the exact quote where I say Hitler is a "good guy".

(Duplicated at root so you don't miss it. And neither will any other reader: I WANT this visible.)

Re:

Physical age is not the problem - his "Senate Term" age is.
Another "poster zombie" for term limits.

Congressional welfare zombie. Brain eaten/infected by Lobbyists!
After his appalling number of years sucking on the public teat, he no longer has any actual productive skills, and has likely become as corrupt as he is useless.

@ "Gwiz" - "Blue, you are confusing me with someone who actually cares what you have to say. Do you honestly think I take anything you say seriously after reading your comments for the last year or so?

You have basically become a hilarious caricature of a stereotypical internet troll to me. Kinda of difficult to take anything you say very seriously at this point. Sorry."

AGAIN NOTHING BUT TROLLING.

Yes, I think it manifest you DO care enough to keep trolling me.

Listen, sonny. You clearly can't grasp that it's futile to reply to me. You're a fool. And you keep wanting to have the last lofty word, but you ain't getting it here, either.

Re: Re: Re: "Senator Fido": REAL Politic and Professional, Mike

"You assume OOTB knows how to read." -- Now, let's look how stoopid this is. Clearly I know how to read, so you're either unable to grasp that fact or just put words together at random. -- I lean toward the latter, as clearly a program can do what you do.

Well, nothing worth sniping at.

For the record, "Anonymous Howard" is the only one who shows any sense. -- Well, there's an AC who at least sees that I generously provide something for even the feebler trolls to take a shot at.

Listen, kids. Just make a comment on the topic, as I have above (now LOST in the crap). Don't sheerly troll with ad hom and then claim I'm a troll, that's just plain stupid, besides counter-factual.

And for the hard-of-understanding, YES, I engage in ad hom when and as I see fit. If you click on reply and get a sharp retort, don't be surprised. -- It's EASY, and I'm better at that than you kids, too.

Re: Successful troll is successful

But as my protests only get more ad hom from rabid fanboys, then I just have to laugh and enjoy. You too will fail at "Don't feed the troll." -- And I'm not labeling myself as such, believe that I have substantive points, now and then, but they're LOST in the mountain of crap from fanboys and I've pretty much ceased caring.

Re: Re: Successful troll is successful

Re: Well, nothing worth sniping at.

Listen, kids. Just make a comment on the topic, as I have above (now LOST in the crap). Don't sheerly troll with ad hom and then claim I'm a troll, that's just plain stupid, besides counter-factual.

Wow. That is really rich coming from the guy who posts comments on every article with only about a 50/50 chance of them being marginally related to the topic. Then to dismiss those who respond to you as "trolls" simply because they respond to your silliness. You are the one trolling, fool.

And for the hard-of-understanding, YES, I engage in ad hom when and as I see fit. If you click on reply and get a sharp retort, don't be surprised. -- It's EASY, and I'm better at that than you kids, too.

Re: Re: "Senator Fido": REAL Politic and Professional, Mike

He doesn't. out_of_the_asscrack has made it clear on multiple occasions that he's all too willing to "tl;dr" anything when he feels like it and treats it like some god-mandated law or something when he does so.

Re: Re: Well, nothing worth sniping at.

Token bait for Gwiz. He'll be compelled to yet again try for the last snipe.

[to the audience of reasonable people (the one of you): at least I know what I'm doing. These kids seem to go on endlessly with pointless ad hom sniping, I guess so that they feel like they've won an argument when they're not even vaguely near ANY topic. I just watch in amazement.]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I may not be for Hatch's scheme, but let's protect movies and music.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Well, nothing worth sniping at.

Yet still, he succeeded again.
If you're the long time troll you claim then you know it's not the defeated arguments that's count, only the number of replies and shitstorm you provoked. And it's quite high.

Re: Re: Successful troll is successful

For the record, "Anonymous Howard" is the only one who shows any sense.

I almost feel ashamed by your approval

You know, in all seriousness, WISH that I could STOP the sheer ad hom replies. I've protested it long

Fighting fire with fire? That's not even plausible, when you still hold the gas can that caused the original.
Maybe you don't label yourself a 'troll', but you act like one, look like one, so you're one.

If you don't like 'TD fanboys', that's ok, you're entitled to your opinion. But don't fancy yourself some 'above the rabble genius' when you produce less constructive argument than a turnip chopped in half.

You too will fail at "Don't feed the troll."

I failed every time I hit 'reply' to one of your comments, but rest assured, I won't do it much more.

Irony is Techdirt fanboys ruining the site.

With your ample support. I think you should spend your time in more constructive ways than filling up a technical forum with your crap